Thrift v. Towers

• Decision Date: 11 November 1915
• Docket Number: 25.
• Citation: 95 A. 1064,127 Md. 54
• Parties: THRIFT, City Comptroller, v. TOWERS, Public Service Com'r.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

95 A. 1064

127 Md. 54

THRIFT, City Comptroller, v. TOWERS, Public Service Com'r.

No. 25.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 11, 1915

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Henry Duffy, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Mandamus by Albert G. Towers, Public Service Commissioner, against James F. Thrift, Comptroller of Baltimore City. From an order directing that the writ issue, the Comptroller appeals. Affirmed.

S. S Field, of Baltimore, for appellant.

W Cabell Bruce, of Baltimore, for appellee.

BURKE J.

The appellee, Albert G. Towers, was appointed, on May 4, 1914, a member of the Public Service Commission of Maryland for the term of six years, and on the same day qualified and entered immediately upon the discharge of his duties as such commissioner. Under Acts 1914, c. 750, as printed in the Public Laws of 1914, there became due him by the mayor and city council of Baltimore the sum of $240.62 for services rendered as a member of the Public Service Commission between May 4, 1914, and August 1, 1914. He made application to James F. Thrift, the comptroller of Baltimore City, for a warrant upon the city register for the payment of the sum claimed to be due. Mr. Thrift declined to issue the warrant, having been advised that the act under which the claim was made was invalid. On the 23d of February, 1915, the appellee filed a petition for a mandamus against the comptroller in the superior court of Baltimore City to compel the payment of the money claimed. The trial, upon the issues joined upon the pleadings in the case, resulted in an order of that court dated April 19, 1915, directing a writ of mandamus to issue against the comptroller commanding him to draw his warrant or to give his approval to the city register for the payment to the petitioner, out of the treasury of the mayor and city council of Baltimore, for the sum of $240.62, being the amount claimed in the petition. The appeal before us was taken by the comptroller from that order.

The single question in the case is the validity vel non of Acts 1914, c. 750. While the answer assailed the act upon a number of grounds, one of these only will be considered for the reason that all the other objections were set up and decided adversely to the appellant in the case of Thrift v Laird, Comptroller, 125 Md. 55, 93 A. 449.

Acts 1914, c. 750, is entitled:

"An act to repeal and re-enact with amendments that portion of section 2 of chapter 180 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland of the year 1910, relating to the compensation of the members of the Public Service Commission."

The act contains 3 sections, and the first section is here transcribed as it appears in the printed volume of the Laws of 1914:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, that all that portion of section 2 of chapter 180 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland of the year 1910, reading as follows: 'The salary of each of said commissioners shall be three thousand dollars ($3,000) per annum, payable out of the state treasury by the state of Maryland; and in addition to said sum of three thousand dollars per annum, the chairman of said commission shall also receive the sum of three thousand dollars per annum, which shall be paid out of its funds by the mayor and city council of Baltimore to said chairman of said commission as an employé of said municipal corporation; and each of the other two commissioners shall receive, in addition to said three thousand dollars, per annum aforesaid, the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000) per annum, which shall be paid out of its funds by the mayor and city council of Baltimore to each of said other two commissioners as employés of said municipal corporation,' be and the same is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments so as to read as follows: 'The salary of each of said commissioners shall be three thousand dollars ($3,000) per annum, payable out of the state treasury of the state of Maryland; and in addition to said sum of three thousand dollars per annum, each of said commissioners shall also receive the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) per annum, which shall be paid out of its funds by the mayor and city council of Baltimore to the members of said commission as employés of said municipal corporation."'

This act, as printed, is free of all constitutional objection, and, if it was actually passed as printed, we must, adhering to our decision in the case of Thrift v. Laird, supra, affirm the order appealed from, because the sole ground upon which the payment of the money is resisted is the alleged unconstitutionality of the act. Before stating and considering the single objection which we regard as open for decision on this appeal, a statement of the legislative history of the bill will be given.

On February 17, 1914, Mr. Mudd introduced into the Senate a bill entitled:

"An act to amend article 23 of the Code of 1912 of Public General Laws of Maryland, titled 'Corporations,' subtitled 'Public Service Commission,' by adding a new section to follow section 462 and to be known as section 462a, the same providing for the forfeiture of corporate rights, powers and franchises upon failure to comply with certain orders of the commission requiring adequacy of public service."

The bill was then numbered Senate Bill No. 287, and this number and the exact title, as above transcribed, was entered upon the Senate Journal. The bill was then read the first time, and referred to the committee on judicial proceedings. Nothing further appears to have been done with respect to this bill until March 31, 1914. On that date Mr. Benson, from the committee on judicial proceedings, reported the bill favorably with amendments. The bill was reported by its original title. The amendment proposed by the committee was this: "Amend by striking out all after the words 'A bill,' and insert in lieu thereof the following." The amendment as proposed by the committee appears at large in volume 2, page 265, of the Senate Journal, and is identical in title and contents with Acts 1914, c. 750, as printed. The report was laid over under the rules, but on the same day, upon motion of Mr. Cooper and by the vote of 27 senators, the rules were suspended, and the bill put upon its second reading. The proposed amendment and the favorable report were adopted, and the amended bill was read the second time and ordered to be printed for a third reading. The effect of the amendment was the substitution of an entire new bill for the bill introduced by Mr. Mudd on February 17, 1914. This method of substituting by amendment an entire new bill is in accordance with universal legislative procedure, and is supported by high authority (vide Jefferson's Manual, section XXXV, page 75), and it is not seriously contended that it violates section 27, article 3, of the Constitution. The bill was printed as amended, for a third reading, that is to say, precisely as it now appears in the published laws of 1914, and in addition thereto there was printed on the outside of one of the pages or wrappers the title of the original bill with indorsements thereon made by the secretary of the Senate before the amended bill was sent to the printer.

It should be stated in this connection that while the amendment proposed by the committee on judicial proceedings was spread upon the Journal of the Senate, and that when the amended bill passed its first and second readings in the Senate it was indicated upon the Journals of the Senate and House through every stage of its legislative progress simply by the title which it bore at the time of its introduction in the Senate, with nothing appearing on the Journal of the House to indicate the amendment.

On April 2, 1914--three days after...